Jim Zorn vs. Sherm Lewis: 6 games each

[No_Pressure]

The fact is this team has gone from playing like crap with its flashy starters against some of the worst teams in the NFL to playing very well without it's flashy starters against good teams with a new play caller.

I suppose the entire coaching staff has done an outstanding job getting the team together and ready to play every week, especially Bugel. I'm excited about what the Sherms have going for them on offense. I think with a more talented line and a new running back we could be a great offense. With a good QB we would be top contenders...then again who wouldn't?

[MartinC]

Why does it have be all or nothing? If it's a factor, it's probably a minor factor because playcalling itself is not that important compared to execution. Most games are won because the players are better than their opponents on that given day.

You seem to be of the opinion that playcalling and execution are separate and unrelated factors. As someone who played the game and who also coached I disagree.

Selecting plays which put your players in the best position to execute and take advantage of their natural abilities - and hide their weaknesses - is a vital component in deciding who is better on that given day.

If I ask a small but fast wide receiver to run a fade route against a taller CB execution might not be that good - if I get a much bigger WR to run a crossing route anticipating man coverage and a natural pick he might score two TDs on the same play in one game. Thats not luck its good play calling.

Execution has improved, even though we have lost some of our best offensive players and are playing tougher opponents.

My opinion is that improved playcalling is a big reason for this improvement in execution. We have diversified the offense, spread the touches around more, partly through neccessity (Cooley being injured has given Davis his chance) and partly trough design (the emergence of Thomas). We are also calling plays which play to our strengths and attack weaknesses, setting up a sequence and thinking ahead. Reacting to what we see on the field not blindly sticking to a formula.

You talk sarcastically about "Lewis magic play calling". Its not magic, its just competence.

The results speak for themselves - vastly improved 3rd down and redzone numbers, better QB play and slightly improved rushing numbers. This with a 3rd string LT and 3rd string RG, 2nd sting TE and 3rd/4th string RB. If having better players - and hence better execution - is key to success then Lewis should be really struggling compared to Zorn.

Finally if improved execution alone is the major reason for the offensive improvement what the hell have the coaches and players been doing for the last 18 months and what exactly has made the lights suddenly go on now?

[The Full Monty]

Here's the real deciding factors:

Sherm Lewis + Levi Jones stopping Jason from getting steamrolled on his blindside = successful offense.

[Oldfan]

MartinC -- You seem to be of the opinion that playcalling and execution are separate and unrelated factors.

That's not my opinion.

Execution and playcalling are separate factors. That's why we give them two names. But, obviously, they are related. There is a two-way relationship: the playcalling can make the execution look better or worse, and the execution can make the playcalling look better or worse.

The two factors are not equal in their impact on the outcome of the game. Execution is a much bigger factor. The quality of the players is much more important than the quality of the playcaller. There isn't much a playcaller can do when his players are overmatched by their opponents. On the other hand, if he has a whole lot more firepower than his opponents, it's hard to miss as a playcaller.

The results speak for themselves -

No, they don't. I'm not sure why people say things like that. It's an absurd claim.

Finally if improved execution alone is the major reason for the offensive improvement what the hell have the coaches and players been doing for the last 18 months and what exactly has made the lights suddenly go on now?

Better execution is probably the biggest factor, but it's not likely to be the only factor. There are coaching decisions on defense that influence offensive stats as well as strategy changes on offense creating better conditions for the playcaller on Sunday.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Im lazy so im going to ask the OP to add this to his original thread. But could you put something like the average loss margin or something like that. I think that would be a nice thing to see. IMO. If not i guess i will have to look it up. lol

[MartinC]

That's not my opinion.

Execution and playcalling are separate factors. That's why we give them two names. But, obviously, they are related. There is a two-way relationship: the playcalling can make the execution look better or worse, and the execution can make the playcalling look better or worse. QUOTE]

It was your opinion in an earlier thread on this subject. I was assuming you would be consistent in your view and belief. I was wrong or perhaps you have been persuaded to change your views over the last 3 or 4 days.

We at least agree though on this now based on what you wrote above - execution and playcalling are linked and related.

A quote from your response on this subject in that thread below.

"Also not true. Playcalling and execution are separate and distinct animals. One describes a coach's task requiring ability. The other describes the players' performance."

[Oldfan]

It was your opinion in an earlier thread on this subject. I was assuming you would be consistent in your view and belief.

I am consistent. In the following quote I am silent on the relationship between execution and playcalling. I'm saying that they are two separate factors -- that's why we give them two names. Perhaps you assumed that my use of the word separate implied that there was no relationship. Sounds like a misunderstanding.

"Also not true. Playcalling and execution are separate and distinct animals. One describes a coach's task requiring ability. The other describes the players' performance."

[MartinC]

I am consistent. In the following quote I am silent on the relationship between execution and playcalling. I'm saying that they are two separate factors -- that's why we give them two names. Perhaps you assumed that my use of the word separate implied that there was no relationship. Sounds like a misunderstanding.

Your memory is failing you I think. Here is the quote from another poster you were responding to.

"I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which playcalling improved but execution didn't, because better playcalling and better execution feed off of each other, and, to a certain extent, create each other. "

Your direct response to this is:

"Also not true. Playcalling and execution are separate and distinct animals. One describes a coach's task requiring ability. The other describes the players' performance."

Your quote was directly related to the relationship between execution and playcalling and your position then was they were separate. Yet in this thread you state:

"Execution and playcalling are separate factors. That's why we give them two names. But, obviously, they are related. There is a two-way relationship: the playcalling can make the execution look better or worse, and the execution can make the playcalling look better or worse."

You have either changed your view or you are being inconsistent.

[Oldfan]

Your memory is failing you I think. Here is the quote from another poster you were responding to.

"I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which playcalling improved but execution didn't, because better playcalling and better execution feed off of each other, and, to a certain extent, create each other. "

My memory is not failing and I have not changed my position. It is quite possible for the playcalling to improve with no improvement in execution. For example, if the play call is unpredictable it has a better chance of success because of the surprise element even if the execution of the play by the offense is the same as it was when the call was predictable.

There can be a cause-effect relationship between playcalling and execution, but it's not a factor that's always in play. More often than not, better execution is the ruling factor, making the playcalling only seem better.

[MartinC]

My memory is not failing and I have not changed my position. It is quite possible for the playcalling to improve with no improvement in execution. For example, if the play call is unpredictable it has a better chance of success because of the surprise element even if the execution of the play by the offense is the same as it was when the call was predictable.

There can be a cause-effect relationship between playcalling and execution, but it's not a factor that's always in play. More often than not, better execution is the ruling factor, making the playcalling only seem better.

I agree with everything you have said above - but sadly it has very little to do with what I see as an inconsistency in the statments you have been making on this subject in different threads and which I am pointing out.

Lets keep this really simple.

A poster says that play calling and execution are linked. You respond this is not true (as shown by the quotes I supplied above).

In this thread you are saying that playcalling and execution are linked (to varying degrees at different times which I totally agree with).

How is that not inconsistent?

Now you are saying that they are linked (which I totally agree with)

[Oldfan]

..Lets keep this really simple.

A poster says that play calling and execution are linked.

If that was all he said, my response would have been: "of course."

[Botched]

Remember the first year Zorn started coaching/calling plays we were winning. And we all said wait until the other teams figure out how to stop Zorn and get some tape on him.

Wouldn't that same reason still be applied here. Other teams don't have tape on the Sherms' yet. Give it time people. It will be back to normal.

That's a really good point. I remember the first 6 or so games of last season Zorn seemed like the greatest coach ever. We weren't making mistakes, we were converting 4th downs, things were just clicking in general. Then everything went to hell and before we knew it that same coach was no longer a genius. I don't see why the same thing couldn't apply here.

Though as of right now, Lewis certainly seems to be an upgrade.

[MartinC]

If that was all he said, my response would have been: "of course."

But your response was "Also not true".

The great thing about ES is you can go look back at past posts.

[Oldfan]

The great thing about ES is you can go look back at past posts.

So, let do that. Here's the quote I replied to:

"I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which playcalling improved but execution didn't, because better playcalling and better execution feed off of each other, and, to a certain extent, create each other. "

Is the author of that statement correct?

Are you "hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which playcalling improved but execution didn't..."

I find it easy to do. How about you?

[MartinC]

So, let do that. Here's the quote I replied to:

"I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which playcalling improved but execution didn't, because better playcalling and better execution feed off of each other, and, to a certain extent, create each other. "

Is the author of that statement correct?

Are you "hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which playcalling improved but execution didn't..."

I find it easy to do. How about you?

Certainly, I'm sure I could.

However you seem to have forgotten the second part of the statement you said was "not true".

"because better playcalling and better execution feed off each other and to a certain extent create each other"

Again your response is an emphatic "Not True". You then expand on this by explaining how "execution and playcalling are separate and distinct animals"

Lets not forget this is in the context of a debate in which you take a very strong view that execution is the main reason for our offensive improvement and playcalling is but a minor factor.

You can try to spin this all you want but you were clearly stating in one thread that playcalling and execution are separate and then in this stating the opposite.

[Oldfan]

Certainly, I'm sure I could.

Then the author's statement isn't true, is it? He's saying that the cause-effect relationship between execution and playcalling is a full-time thing. They can't be separated.

However you seem to have forgotten the second part of the statement you said was "not true".

This is ridiculous. You clip off half the statement which changes the author's meaning and then you decide that my reply was directed to the meaning of your choice. Is this what you call debate?

[RandyHolt]

I think Levi at LT and BMW at guard have had a steadying influence on our offense. It seems like our blitz pickups were actually working of late. Our play calls are just a little bit better. The Portis injury and the emergence of Davis and Thomas are big factors as well. Zorn seemed to have the offense game plan based on one guy. If the D takes that guy out, we were toast. Sherm moves the ball around much more, thats a factor. But we still dont attack or exploit weaknesses on defenses. Our offense has done well of late but we are still not winning games.

Fingers need to be pointed onto the other side of the LOS at this point. Blache cant get a free ride all year on a 3-9 team. One Sherm or two, offense rolling or not, looking at the big picture, it doesnt seem to matter.

[DMVSkins]

I have no problem keeping Campbell and Zorn as long as Sherm Lewis remains playcaller why reason 1. Snyder wants a puppet as Coach Zorn atleast would provide that to Snyder and provide continuity 2nd. I don't see any of the QB's we could draft or any hitting the free agent market being a huge upgrade from Campbell we can still draft one let Zorn groom him for a season. I have seen progress with the Redskins at this part of the season but due to Snyder's shortman complex I expect major changes which puts us back to square one.

[MartinC]

This is ridiculous. You clip off half the statement which changes the author's meaning and then you decide that my reply was directed to the meaning of your choice. Is this what you call debate?

I'm learning at the feet of a master

[TimmySmith]

I'm learning at the feet of a master

OF can be infuriating at times but in this case he is trying to get the point across that a Good Playcall will fail without proper execution while a Bad Playcall may succeed with proper execution. Therefore playcalling may never be looked at as a major difference maker.

I disagree with OF's assessment that Lewis is not the major reason behind the increased efficiency in execution. He obviously is.

[Oldfan]

I disagree with OF's assessment that Lewis is not the major reason behind the increased efficiency in execution. He obviously is.

Posters are prone to use the word "obviously" when they can't come up with reasons to support their opinion. Have you noticed?

[TimmySmith]

Posters are prone to use the word "obviously" when they can't come up with reasons to support their opinion. Have you noticed?

I assumed the point of the thread would clue everyone in. As we all have learned, you put your faith in coincidences.

[Oldfan]

I assumed the point of the thread would clue everyone in. As we all have learned, you put your faith in coincidences.

You know that coincidence is certainly a plausible explanation. I know you know it because you implied it "obviously" wasn't while giving no reasons to support your opinion.

[jfriedenthal]

The Portis injury and the emergence of Davis and Thomas are big factors as well. Zorn seemed to have the offense game plan based on one guy. If the D takes that guy out, we were toast. Sherm moves the ball around much more, thats a factor. But we still dont attack or exploit weaknesses on defenses.

Zorn and Smith STILL DO THE GAME PLANNING. ZORN AND SMITH insert the plays for the week, NOT Sherm Lewis. Again, Again, Again. Look, Zorn isn't the best HC out there, but I don't think he gets credit when it's due. He and Sherm Smith have done a decent job getting the newbies in the game. Lewis is doing good playcalling, but that alone isn't the difference. The bottom line is, the plays Sherm Lewis call, are plays that ZORN and SMITH PICKED OUT. Everyone can recognize that there is a lot more going on, and a lot more that changed, than just the play caller.

[MartinC]

Zorn and Smith STILL DO THE GAME PLANNING. ZORN AND SMITH insert the plays for the week, NOT Sherm Lewis. Again, Again, Again. Look, Zorn isn't the best HC out there, but I don't think he gets credit when it's due. He and Sherm Smith have done a decent job getting the newbies in the game. Lewis is doing good playcalling, but that alone isn't the difference. The bottom line is, the plays Sherm Lewis call, are plays that ZORN and SMITH PICKED OUT. Everyone can recognize that there is a lot more going on, and a lot more that changed, than just the play caller.

As per Chris Cooley Sherm Lewis installs the regular game plan and then on Thursdays Jom Zorn installs the 3rd down packages. All the coaches - including Lewis - have input to the make up of the gameplan. I have no idea how much Lewis says or suggests of course in those meetings.

I would not argue though that the existing coaches have shown class and done a great job integrating Lewis and that there is more than just better playcalling going on here. But better playcalling and some of the tweaks that Lewis is making (Devin Thomas was quoted giving the example that Lewis has changed some of the depths of the pass routes) are a significant part of the improvement.